Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart

Hi,

On April 18, 2025 11:17:21 AM GMT+02:00, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Doesn't that achieve the goal with fewer steps, using only
>portable* POSIX stuff, and keeping all pointers stable?  I understand
>that pointer stability may not be required (I can see roughly how that
>argument is constructed), but isn't it still better to avoid having to
>prove that and deal with various other problems completely?

I think we should flat out reject any approach that does not maintain pointer stability.  It would restrict future
optimizationsa lot if we can't rely on that (e.g. not materializing tuples when transporting them from worker to
leader;pointering datastructures in shared buffers). 

Greetings,

Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.